 |
 |
Hi all Thanks for all your considered postings. I like Domenico's view a lot, and I also take Johannes' point and as a result I do feel somewhat anxious (perhaps not the right word) about the impending release of our new book 'Rethinking Curating: Art After New Media', parts of which we wrote five+ years ago now! For a long time (we're 10 this year!) CRUMB has defined itself as a key partner to 'the ghetto' of new media art and pointed out (hopefully to contemporary art curators as well as others) the exciting differences or characteristics the work produced in that quarter present, both to the field of contemporary art and the practice of curating. Steve Dietz has very rigorously in the last five years (every time I have spoken with him or asked him to write anything, and in his work in San Jose) repeated that he is tired of pointing out differences and wants to focus on the similarities (a conversation we began with 'The Art Formerly Known As New Media' show). So I wonder how our book, which points to this future time we could be entering, or indeed live in already, of 'Art After New Media', will come across, as chapters in the book try to do both, point out similarities (to video, as a time-based media for instance) and differences (to what working collaboratively in a network really means). I don't think, Johannes, that this list feels any more outrage than others about the slighting of media art in the mainstream of art criticism or museum management, it is simply a good place to pause and reflect on how media art is perceived by the 'mainstream' art field, and is full of curators who have felt that disregard first hand. I was interested to note, in following the 'tweets' from the Decode conference today, that Hannah Redler pointed out that the best new media art isn't coming from art schools right now but from design interaction programs (sorry Hannah if I got that wrong). Certainly this is the type of new media practice that seems to have the most traction in the United States (at places like Eyebeam, and in recent exhibitions such as Design and the Elastic Mind at MoMA), and is the more 'hot' topic to the media (see how excited publications like Wired can get about data visualisation projects). Gadgetry versus narrative or content? Social tools? So long as new media keeps continuing to redefine what art can be (as the Dadaists did, Will Gompertz take note), then I'm happy to be a curator looking at it. Happy weekend all, Sarah On 5 Feb 2010, at 19:29, Simon Biggs wrote: > I totally agree. The focus now should be on relationships within, > across and > beyond networks. That’s where I am going... > > Best > > Simon > > > Simon Biggs > > [log in to unmask] > [log in to unmask] > Skype: simonbiggsuk > http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ > > edinburgh college of art > http://www.eca.ac.uk/ > > Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ > > Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in > Practice > http://www.elmcip.net/ > > > > From: tom corby <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: tom corby <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:25:50 +0000 > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] new media at the BBC > > Simon > > I don't think it's enough to say Foster/Mulvey/AN Other hasn't evolved > - that the lack of purchase of net art practices on the mainstream > art > world is the fault of stuffy academicians too deeply entrenched in > mainstream discourses. Like I said earlier, this kind of > self-ghettoizing closes down opportunities for more nuanced > understandings of what's happening or might happen. > > I suspect that we're moving into a post network media age now > anyhow (I > hope so anyhow). Basically the network isn't about communication or > technology, it's about relations between between ecologies (natural, > social and technological). It's in the articulation of these domains > that a "networked art" can really contribute too and develop cultural > agency. > > > > > > > > Simon Biggs wrote: >> Hal Foster hasn’t evolved. Being smart doesn’t guarantee that. >> >> I was at a Laura Mulvey talk last night. She is super-smart, one >> of the most >> important film theorists of the past forty years. She was >> discussing new >> media and digital systems but was doing so within a structural >> materialist >> approach that still spoke the language of media specificity. It >> was as if >> convergence media had never happened. I felt like I was in a flash- >> back to >> 1986. Her lecture was lovingly constructed and beautifully >> presented with >> loads of interesting insights. But her hypothesis was totally >> wrong. She has >> not evolved either and this disallows access to the new discourses >> that have >> emerged since the 1990’s. >> >> There was a key point – I would say it was probably around 1988 to >> 1990 – >> when the terms of debate shifted completely. It wasn’t noted at >> the time, >> really, although some people had a sense of something happening >> (being in >> the midst of it). In retrospect the indicators are clearer. >> >> Are there any suggestions for other years? >> >> Best >> >> Simon >> >> >> Simon Biggs >> >> [log in to unmask] >> [log in to unmask] >> Skype: simonbiggsuk >> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ >> >> edinburgh college of art >> http://www.eca.ac.uk/ >> >> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments >> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ >> >> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in >> Practice >> http://www.elmcip.net/ >> >> >> >> From: tom corby <[log in to unmask]> >> Reply-To: tom corby <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:59:01 +0000 >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] new media at the BBC >> >> "This may mean either that Net Art, along the last 15 years, didn't >> produced anything noteworthy or that Net Art, after roughly 15 >> years of >> existence, still challenges the evaluation criteria and critical >> tools >> available for a mid-career, traditionally trained contemporary art >> critic." >> >> Thank you Domenico, this is a really useful post. In regard the 2 >> possible reasons why contemporary art critics don't "get net art" its >> probably really a mixture of the 2. >> >> I do however find it worrying that intelligent cultural commentators >> like Hal Foster don't really engage the net art phenomena. It's not >> enough to dismiss this as conservatism or technophobia which are the >> normal responses. Some productive soul searching on theses issues >> would >> be a useful outcome of Gompertz's blog. >> >> >> Domenico Quaranta wrote: >> >>> Hi crumbers, >>> >>> I just posted this on Will Gompertz blog... >>> >>> I had some funny time reading this article and all the reactions it >>> produced, on this blog and around the Web (check out, among other >>> things, Lauren Cornell's contribution on Rhizome - >>> http://rhizome.org/editorial/3282 – and the CRUMB thread >>> onhttp://www.crumbweb.org/). Personally, as an art critic strongly >>> interested in Net Art, I don't think that Mr. Will Gompertz just >>> needs >>> some links to "hot" web projects, neither informations of any >>> kind. He >>> doesn't write "I can't find any net-based art", but "I can't find >>> any >>> net-based art of note". As the following statement suggests, Mr. >>> Gompertz knows very well what Net Art is: "Duchamp and the Dadaists >>> would have had hours of artistic amusement creating spoof websites, >>> unintelligible Wiki entries and general questioning of the status >>> quo." Well, at least 50% of the best Net Art is "spoof websites, >>> unintelligible Wiki entries and general questioning of the status >>> quo." >>> >>> So, if I see a problem here, it isn't a problem of ignorance, but of >>> critical judgement. What we have here is a mid-career art critic >>> - one >>> who wrote for the Times and the Guardian and who ran Tate Online >>> before joining the BBC as arts editor - who claims that, among the >>> many net art projects he came in touch with along his brilliant >>> career, he didn't find anything that can be described as "a >>> significant artwork". This may mean either that Net Art, along the >>> last 15 years, didn't produced anything noteworthy or that Net Art, >>> after roughly 15 years of existence, still challenges the evaluation >>> criteria and critical tools available for a mid-career, >>> traditionally >>> trained contemporary art critic. >>> >>> Both the options above can be right of course. My little >>> experience in >>> the field makes me believe in the last one. It may help us to >>> understand why, among other things, important art critics not >>> strictly >>> connected with the art market (and thus potentially interested in >>> critical practices), such as Hal Foster or Rosalind Krauss, were >>> never >>> able to get it. And I think that, if we'll be able to focus the >>> discussion on these topics - how Net Art challenges traditional >>> criticism? do we really need "other criteria" in order to understand >>> it and its positioning in the contemporary art field? - Mr. >>> Gompertz's >>> remarks will turn out to be really useful. >>> >>> My bests, >>> Domenico >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Domenico Quaranta >>> >>> web. http://domenicoquaranta.com/ >>> email. [log in to unmask] >>> mob. +39 340 2392478 >>> skype. dom_40 >>> >>> >> >> >> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in >> Scotland, number > SC009201 >> >> > > > Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, > number SC009201